Is it smart to support Bernie Sanders for Prez?

[TommyJeff]

Can Bernie Sanders help an end goal of Rand Paul winning in 2016? If he chooses to run for president as an independent, I would surmise he will take a much higher percentage of Hillary votes than he does Rand votes - and that's to the advantage of Rand supports. So is there any logic to encouraging Sanders to run as independent and if so, what would be the best plan?

[Ronin Truth]

Only if you really want a socialist POTUS, which BTW, isn't smart.

[TommyJeff]

Only if you really want a socialist POTUS, which BTW, isn't smart.

Maybe my OP wasn't clear, I only was asking about support for him to run for prez, not to vote for him.

[acptulsa]

Bernie Sanders' job is to keep Democrats out of the Republican primaries in open states, and to keep them from changing their registration and playing in the Republican primaries in closed states, and this is aimed squarely at Rand Paul and our Blue Republican initiative. And he will do his job--a job which specifically does not include running third party in the general election.

Sorry, what were you saying would be smart...?

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Bernie Sanders running would be a disaster for us. Those "skeptical liberals" we're trying to pry away from the bloodthirsty Hillary with Rand's centrist war/weed/social policies would vote for Bernie if he is on the ticket.


This needs to be framed as the war establishment on both sides attacking Rand, with Rand being that enticing maverick underdog those skeptical liberals could take a chance on. We're going for the relatively small fraction of liberals who actually vote on foreign policy, privacy, and social issues.... 80% of democrats or more would vote for Adolf Hitler as long as he whined about the Koch bros. and the 1%..... The opportunity for those liberals to vote for someone who's actually anti-war, abti-policr state and pro-weed and shares their economic views all but assures they won't be coming out for Rand

[erowe1]

Makes sense to me.

[jmdrake]

Bernie Sanders' job is to keep Democrats out of the Republican primaries in open states, and to keep them from changing their registration and playing in the Republican primaries in closed states, and this is aimed squarely at Rand Paul and our Blue Republican initiative. And he will do his job--a job which specifically does not include running third party in the general election.

Sorry, what were you saying would be smart...?

If Bernie Sanders runs as an independent doesn't that mean he won't run in the primary which means that any democrat who wanted to vote for him in the general election could still vote for Rand in the primary? Seems like it wouldn't at all effect the "blue republican" strategy. That said, I'm not sure that people interested in voting third party would necessarily vote for Hillary if there is no viable third party option.

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe my OP wasn't clear, I only was asking about support for him to run for prez, not to vote for him.

Did I mention vote?

[acptulsa]

If Bernie Sanders runs as an independent doesn't that mean he won't run in the primary which means that any democrat who wanted to vote for him in the general election could still vote for Rand in the primary? Seems like it wouldn't at all effect the "blue republican" strategy. That said, I'm not sure that people interested in voting third party would necessarily vote for Hillary if there is no viable third party option.

I saw Bernie Sanders on one of the Sunday Morning shows and the possibility of him running independent never came up. He is thinking of running for the Democratic nomination.

[jmdrake]

I saw Bernie Sanders on one of the Sunday Morning shows and the possibility of him running independent never came up. He is thinking of running for the Democratic nomination.

Well the OP was specifically talking about Bernie running as an independent. But yes, if he runs as a democrat it hurts the blue republican strategy. For that to work Hillary basically needs to run unopposed. But I expect there to be token opposition. (Elizabeth Warren). We had a good shot at a blue republican strategy last time, but it kept getting shot down by those with tunnel vision who couldn't thinking beyond the "likely republican voters" mantra. I convinced some dems to cross over and vote for Ron. Had it been a big nationwide push it could have made an impact.

[acptulsa]

Well the OP was specifically talking about Bernie running as an independent.

And how will the OP talk Sanders into doing so...?

[jmdrake]

And how will the OP talk Sanders into doing so...?

Sounds like he was asking for advice on how to do that.

[TommyJeff]

Did I mention vote?

Without voting, why would you fear he could win a national election and give us a socialist president? I'm just consisted by your first post on this forum. Would you better explain please? Thanks.

[Ronin Truth]

Without voting, why would you fear he could win a national election and give us a socialist president? I'm just consisted by your first post on this forum. Would you better explain please? Thanks.

No fear.

What did your OP mean by support?

[TommyJeff]

And how will the OP talk Sanders into doing so...?

I could not talk him into doing this. But I did hear him in an interview say that he's torn about running on the Democrat's ticket or as an independent. It sounds as though, based on his words, he would run as an independent if he can gain enough grassroots support (mostly in his state I imagine though I'm sure nationally wouldn't hurt). Upon hearing this interview of his, I started to wonder if his running as an independent could be an ideal scenario for Rand Paul supporters. That was the reasoning behind my OP and to begin such a dialog as we have here.
Hopefully that clears up a few things. Thanks for posing.

[acptulsa]

Without voting, why would you fear he could win a national election and give us a socialist president? I'm just consisted by your first post on this forum. Would you better explain please? Thanks.

So what is your first language, just out of conversational curiosity? Japanese? Manchurian?

Hopefully that clears up a few things. Thanks for posing.

LOL I didn't, but you're welcome anyway.

Well, my take on this is he'll do us some bit of damage if he runs in the primaries, and even if he promises to run independent after he loses that I don't trust him to do it. But he would do it, if polling indicates he'll steal more antiwar vote from Rand Paul than liberal vote from Clinton. Which is certainly possible. The Democratic Party is being criticized for not offering a principled prog for prez; sounds like they're paying attention. They figure they're better off splitting off some of the liberal vote themselves than letting Rand Paul split some of it off and add it to the conservative vote.

As far as the powers that be are concerned, Sanders has a huge advantage over Paul--Sanders can't win. That's enough to convince them to support his run wholeheartedly--provided they can find advantage in doing it.

[ctiger2]

It's smart to not support anyone for Prez.

[Keith and stuff]

Can Bernie Sanders help an end goal of Rand Paul winning in 2016? If he chooses to run for president as an independent, I would surmise he will take a much higher percentage of Hillary votes than he does Rand votes - and that's to the advantage of Rand supports. So is there any logic to encouraging Sanders to run as independent and if so, what would be the best plan?

I heard he might run, but only as a Democrat. Some of the anti-war left voted for Ron Paul in 2012. They did so because there was no anti-war person, or hardly even a primary at all, on the Democratic side. If Sanders runs, a bunch of folks that might have voted for Rand Paul in the Republican primary will instead vote for Sanders in the Democratic primary. Will it be enough for Rand to lose a state or two?

[TommyJeff]

So what is your first language, just out of conversational curiosity? Japanese? Manchurian?
.

I meant "confused". Auto correct changed to "consisted"

[TommyJeff]

LOL I didn't, but you're welcome anyway.

I believe you meant "it" didnt, not "I" didnt. Right?
Might I suggest, Those in glass houses.....

[acptulsa]

I meant "confused". Auto correct changed to "consisted"

Last time I had a computer where I couldn't turn auto-correct off, I opened a window with it. And that particular word wasn't why I asked.

I believe you meant "it" didnt, not "I" didnt. Right?
Might I suggest, Those in glass houses.....

In the interest of transparency, I said what I meant--that I did no posing.

[Sola_Fide]

The problem with progressives is that they are much better at politics than freedom types. Who ever they get into office in the end is going to grow government.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't see much prospect for Democrats crossing over in either the primary or the general. 2012 should not be used as guide, since there was no Democratic primary. The best we can reasonably hope for (and this is no small thing) is for some of the "progressive" Dems to sit out the general out of disgust with Hillary. But tribal loyalties won't allow most of them to actually vote for Rand. I hope that somebody like Warren (Sanders is not a serious enough candidate) will give Hillary a run for her money in the primary, to feed that discontent within the Party that's bound to arise if it's Rand v. Hillary in November.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't see much prospect for Democrats crossing over in either the primary or the general. 2012 should not be used as guide, since there was no Democratic primary. The best we can reasonably hope for (and this is no small thing) is for some of the "progressive" Dems to sit out the general out of disgust with Hillary. But tribal loyalties won't allow most of them to actually vote for Rand. I hope that somebody like Warren (Sanders is not a serious enough candidate) will give Hillary a run for her money in the primary, to feed that discontent within the Party that's bound to arise if it's Rand v. Hillary in November.

I truly think Hillary and Warren will end up on a ticket together. I think Hillary is going to shrink back on her war talk.

[r3volution 3.0]

I truly think Hillary and Warren will end up on a ticket together. I think Hillary is going to shrink back on her war talk.

As you imply, the primary thing holding back such a ticket is their (perceived) incompatibility on foreign policy. Hillary would have to make an about-face on 20 years of public statements, not to mention repudiate all of her "accomplishments" as Secretary of State. Not sure it can be done: hope not, since her hawkishness would be one of our biggest advantages.

[Dianne]

As you imply, the primary thing holding back such a ticket is their (perceived) incompatibility on foreign policy. Hillary would have to make an about-face on 20 years of public statements, not to mention repudiate all of her "accomplishments" as Secretary of State. Not sure it can be done: hope not, since her hawkishness would be one of our biggest advantages.

Well the press has her back. None of these issues will be brought up outside of FOX News. I'm just wondering who Hillary Beast will choose as VP.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well the press has her back. None of these issues will be brought up outside of FOX News. I'm just wondering who Hillary Beast will choose as VP.

My guess is a youngish, white (possibly Hispanic) male who's entirely ideologically simpatico.

Too bad Marco Rubio's a GOPer, he'd be perfect.

[thoughtomator]

I can simplify all this and simply say Sanders would be the new Ross Perot, party-impact-flipped.

[acptulsa]

I can simplify all this and simply say Sanders would be the new Ross Perot, party-impact-flipped.

Yes. And maybe not. There really is another 'tribal loyalty' out there, and it is gaining strength. It's the peace vote. And it really does cross party lines, if it has to.

Sanders is only dangerous if he can, and only as dangerous as his ability to, steal peace voters away from Rand Paul. Be it in the primaries or the general. If peace voters don't have enough sense to rally behind their strongest candidate--which is Rand Paul--then Sanders could do some actual damage.

Sanders is a weapon aimed very specifically at splitting the peace vote. That's what this is all about.

[TommyJeff]

Last time I had a computer where I couldn't turn auto-correct off, I opened a window with it. And that particular word wasn't why I asked.



In the interest of transparency, I said what I meant--that I did no posing.

posing? Did I really say that? I apologize for my earlier glass comment - I was wrong to cast the first stone.